Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,635 Views)
DocInBird
Member
Roughly 10-12% of all mammals are born with homosexual tendencies, according to all research not performed by Jimmie Joe Bob at a local church, who claims he can "heal them". If one accepts the ID doctrine and believes in the Judeo-Christian god and the bible, then there is a paradox here.

On one hand, god intelligently created every species on earth, wanted most of them to die, but created mammals in a way that 10-12% were homosexual. Then he turned around and declared this part of his creation to be abominable I don't understand this part. Can someone explain it to me?

Would this help? The anti-homosexual agenda seems to be fixated two verses in the book of Leviticus. Before I mention them, I must comment that all scholars consider the King James Version of the bible to be one of the worst ever produced. It was released in 1611 and was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. It was called "vulgate" for a reason.

The Hebrew text is: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." It is most probably transliterated into English as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". This is where the contextual confusion lies. This part of Leviticus is entirely about the temple rituals. If you read your history, there were competing pagan rituals involving anal intercourse. What the scholars cannot decide is whether this was a prohibition of this practice during the temple rituals and how this involved the wife's bed.

It has been translated all over the place, but I would guess that my "uncle Pat", Pat Robertson was a frequent guest when I was a child, would choose to translate it in a particular way. Notice that it does not mention lesbians at all.

Biblical scholars still debate over this. Was the author more concerned about gay males having sex in the wife's bed, or about the assumed dominance/submissive roles of males/females? It wasn't until centuries later that the "male with male" was changed to homosexual.

I'm not a biblical scholar. I searched and found my answer a long time ago. For those of you that are, would it help if I gave the Greek for these passages? Would you also like to hear what the scholars had to say about the translations and how this didn't really make any difference.

Why would an Intelligent Designer create all of the higher life forms to be abhorrent to a god of this planet? There is no serious scientist that believes that being gay can be cured. This is a simple fact. Do you know how many digests and technical journals I have to go through each month?

So, please explain it to me. I humbly ask. I just don't understand.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Doc......

I, too, am familiar with orthodox jewish teaching re homosexuality.....
and, after thinking about it, it seems to me that jewish thought on the subject comes from the idea that a man's seed is not to be wasted or spent for pleasure alone.... because its role in regeneration is "like God's".... the initiator of life.
Just as God breathed into man's nostrils, making him a living being, man's seed enters and becomes one with an egg, causing new life to commence.

So homosexuality, of itself, is not the "sin", but an act that wastes a man's seed is.

But... to focus on homosexual wasting of seed and disregard the rampant waste of seed by heterosexuals is plain old hypocrisy.
The rc church tried to implant the idea that sexual activity is not the be-all, end-all of what a man is, but all that accomplished was derision from those who do not want to curb their pleasure.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
DocInBird
Jun 12 2006, 02:12 AM
Roughly 10-12% of all mammals are born with homosexual tendencies, according to all research not performed by Jimmie Joe Bob at a local church, who claims he can "heal them".  If one accepts the ID doctrine and believes in the Judeo-Christian god and the bible, then there is a paradox here.

Homosexual tendacies in animals....either its because they don't know the difference or they are just expressing dominance. <Sarcasm>In other words, Hey, I'm better than you, Bend over....something us humans want to emulate from the animal kingdom!</Sarcasm>

<religion hat>
We are different than amimals. We have an eternal soul. They don't.

They exibit homosexual tendacies because they were designed that way. For them, it doesn't matter. For us, its different. We do know better, and it does matter. That is why God told us not to do it.

Quote:
 
On one hand, god intelligently created every species on earth, wanted most of them to die, but created mammals in a way that 10-12% were homosexual.  Then he turned around and declared this part of his creation to be abominable  I don't understand this part.  Can someone explain it to me?
Sure. God doesn't want us to emulate animals. He wants us to emulate Him. There are other things he doesn't want us to do that animals do, like pee on our food, kill the babies of rivals, and rape our females.

Quote:
 
Would this help?  The anti-homosexual agenda seems to be fixated two verses in the book of Leviticus.  Before I mention them, I must comment that all scholars consider the King James Version of the bible to be one of the worst ever produced.  It was released in 1611 and was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate by Jerome.  It was called "vulgate" for a reason.

The Hebrew text is: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."  It is most probably transliterated into English as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman".  This is where the contextual confusion lies.  This part of Leviticus is entirely about the temple rituals.  If you read your history, there were competing pagan rituals involving anal intercourse.  What the scholars cannot decide is whether this was a prohibition of this practice during the temple rituals and how this involved the wife's bed.

It has been translated all over the place, but I would guess that my "uncle Pat", Pat Robertson was a frequent guest when I was a child, would choose to translate it in a particular way.  Notice that it does not mention lesbians at all.

Biblical scholars still debate over this.  Was the author more concerned about gay males having sex in the wife's bed, or about the assumed dominance/submissive roles of males/females?  It wasn't until centuries later that the "male with male" was changed to homosexual.

I'm not a biblical scholar.
Yes, you aren't. This is not the only place where this direction from God is. Also, you did not read the scripture in context. Read the chapter:

Quote:
 

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

   2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, '(A)I am the LORD your God.

   3'You shall not do what is (B)done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is ©done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.

   4'You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; (D)I am the LORD your God.

   5'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, (E)by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.

   6'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.

   7'(F)You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.

   8'(G)You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.

   9'(H)The nakedness of your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.

   10'The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.

   11'The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.

   12'(I)You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's blood relative.

   13'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's blood relative.

   14'(J)You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.

   15'(K)You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.

   16'(L)You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness.

   17'(M)You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.

   18'You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.

   19'(N)Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her (O)menstrual impurity.

   20'(P)You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.

   21'You shall not give any of your offspring (Q)to offer them to Molech, nor shall you ®profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

   22'(S)You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
   23'(T)Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.

   24'Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these (U)the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.

   25'For the land has become defiled, (V)therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land (W)has spewed out its inhabitants.

   26'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you

   27(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);

   28so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.

   29'For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.

   30'Thus you are to keep (X)My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; (Y)I am the LORD your God.'"

Quote:
 
I searched and found my answer a long time ago.  For those of you that are, would it help if I gave the Greek for these passages?  Would you also like to hear what the scholars had to say about the translations and how this didn't really make any difference.

Why would an Intelligent Designer create all of the higher life forms to be abhorrent to a god of this planet?  There is no serious scientist that believes that being gay can be cured.  This is a simple fact.  Do you know how many digests and technical journals I have to go through each month?

So, please explain it to me.  I humbly ask.  I just don't understand.


Maybe you made a mistake a long time ago.

When you buy a new car, do you get an "owners manual" that keeps you from harming the car? The bible is our "owners manual" given by the creator to keep us from harming ourselves and others.

</Religion hat>
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Doc:

Quote:
 
23'(T)Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.


Maybe we interpreted this scripture wrong also?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I have read recently several accounts--from information theory, quantum theory, evolutionary theory--that when it comes down to it, at the level of genes, the purpose of life is for genes to reproduce. So here we have genes (or alleles) playing god's role?

But, Jane, I think you miss Doc's point--perhaps I do, but I take it as why did this absolutely perfect God of yours produce imperfection? And, as Doc has asked before, given even the IDer's acceptance of most of evolution, why use such an imperfect process?

Perhaps homosexuality clouds the issue. Consider instead the t gene in mice that if it appears alone is safe but in pairs leads to death before reproduction, wiping out whole species of mice. Why would an Inteliigent Designer design something like that?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 12 2006, 11:36 AM
And, as Doc has asked before, given even the IDer's acceptance of most of evolution, why use such an imperfect process?

Perhaps homosexuality clouds the issue. Consider instead the t gene in mice that if it appears alone is safe but in pairs leads to death before reproduction, wiping out whole species of mice. Why would an Inteliigent Designer design something like that?

We don't completely understand the design. We also don't completely understand our effect on it. Remember global warming? Some harm we see could be caused by us.

Also...Evolution is still a theory and this is just another reason that it may be wrong.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 02:41 PM
Alan "Yanaguni Monument....Most, if not all who SEE the monument, think it is man made. This is a personal belief on their part IMHO. No science involved."

Then it is not science, is it, but personal relief, and largely religious I suspect.

I don't think religion is involved at all. Just divers that go down and look at the monument.

Quote:
 
If you value analogies, use this as an understanding why ID is not science but religion. As you say "The scientists however cannot accept this because this is primarily based on personal belief." Well, there you have it. By definition, it is not science. Therefore it should not be taught in biology classes.


"But ignoring the evidence of the YM being man made is wrong, and I feel the same way about ID."

Sure. If there were any evidence.
There is evidence. Look at the pictures. Has nature ever created such perfect steps going from one level to another? I wish the steps I made for my deck were that good!
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
teryt
Jun 9 2006, 02:42 PM
Very funny! OK, let me be more specific: When you use the word "Creationism," do you think young earth, or do you just think it pertains to a Creator?

Shouldn't science be the support of truth, whether it's material or not?

It pertains to a creator. A supernatural one is implied IMHO, which makes it too much religion and not enough science.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
abradf2519
Jun 12 2006, 12:45 PM
cmoehle
Jun 12 2006, 11:36 AM
And, as Doc has asked before, given even the IDer's acceptance of most of evolution, why use such an imperfect process?

Perhaps homosexuality clouds the issue. Consider instead the t gene in mice that if it appears alone is safe but in pairs leads to death before reproduction, wiping out whole species of mice. Why would an Inteliigent Designer design something like that?

We don't completely understand the design. We also don't completely understand our effect on it. Remember global warming? Some harm we see could be caused by us.

Also...Evolution is still a theory and this is just another reason that it may be wrong.

Well, when you do understand it, let us know, then maybe we'll understand why you want it taught.


Evolution is still a theory and this is just another reason that it may be wrong. Only Creationists argue it is more when it has since Darwin been shown wrong to many times to count and revised to to what it is now.


Of course ID is a theory and this is just another reason that it may be wrong. But when was the last time it was revised?


God is just a theory too.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
But, Jane, I think you miss Doc's point--perhaps I do, but I take it as why did this absolutely perfect God of yours produce imperfection? And, as Doc has asked before, given even the IDer's acceptance of most of evolution, why use such an imperfect process?


well, maybe we're all missing the point about what life is all about. :)
maybe God's "work" is making something perfect out of chaos.
maybe the point is: overcoming chaos, building something good out of scattered material...creativity. maybe it's making lemonade out of lemons.

maybe there's more fun in making something out of a mess that having everything perfect (and boring) to begin with.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
abradf2519
Jun 12 2006, 12:50 PM
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 02:41 PM
Alan "Yanaguni Monument....Most, if not all who SEE the monument, think it is man made. This is a personal belief on their part IMHO. No science involved."

Then it is not science, is it, but personal relief, and largely religious I suspect.

I don't think religion is involved at all. Just divers that go down and look at the monument.

Quote:
 
If you value analogies, use this as an understanding why ID is not science but religion. As you say "The scientists however cannot accept this because this is primarily based on personal belief." Well, there you have it. By definition, it is not science. Therefore it should not be taught in biology classes.


"But ignoring the evidence of the YM being man made is wrong, and I feel the same way about ID."

Sure. If there were any evidence.
There is evidence. Look at the pictures. Has nature ever created such perfect steps going from one level to another? I wish the steps I made for my deck were that good!

Please read more carefully. I did not say it was (a) religion. I said it is religious. That is so in being personal belief.


That is not evidence. It is your personal perception. It it were evidence it would move meters everyone who looked would see.

Same as hot and cold are not evidence but 71 degrees celcius is.

Evidence in this case would be evidence of design and evidence of construction. Where's the blueprint? Where's the tools used?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
TexasShadow
Jun 12 2006, 12:58 PM
Quote:
 
But, Jane, I think you miss Doc's point--perhaps I do, but I take it as why did this absolutely perfect God of yours produce imperfection? And, as Doc has asked before, given even the IDer's acceptance of most of evolution, why use such an imperfect process?


well, maybe we're all missing the point about what life is all about. :)
maybe God's "work" is making something perfect out of chaos.
maybe the point is: overcoming chaos, building something good out of scattered material...creativity. maybe it's making lemonade out of lemons.

maybe there's more fun in making something out of a mess that having everything perfect (and boring) to begin with.

So where is there any perfection? Is God having trouble achieving his purpose? Is he a lesser god after all? (more on that latter...)


Chaos Theory is where the notion of spontaneous order comes from. Here is another example:

Posted Image

Here's the link, enjoy creating: Julia and Mandelbrot Set Explorer.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
So where is there any perfection? Is God having trouble achieving his purpose? Is he a lesser god after all? (more on that latter...)


maybe REACHING perfection isn't the goal. Maybe striving for perfection is what it's all about.
Life is what you make of it.
Remember, the point of religion is to help man figure out just what is really important. LASTING happiness comes from man finding inner peace of mind and contentment, but even that is not some static level one reaches and never has to struggle with again.
It's only when we reach a level where the SRUGGLE itself is a joy....
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
Too much to read! Started back with the new messages and decided it's just too much to waste a lot of time on.

However, I did get a chuckle out of this list:

Quote:
 
What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:

1. There is no evidence for more than one universe or one creation event.
2. Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10^120.
3. No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.
4. No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
5. It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.
6. Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
7. Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
8. Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.


The one that really got me laughing was number 3. This is a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty of the ID'ers on two counts:

1. No other rocky planets have been found.

Umm... Mercury, Venus, Mars and Pluto don't count?

2. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.

Perhaps because the only means of detection we presently have can only find huge planets orbiting close to their primary? Drag a net with 20 foot mesh openings through the ocean and the only thing you'll catch are some pretty big whales. Apparently the IDer would say only whales exist in the ocean.

Either the person composing this list is incredibly ignorant of the means by which exo-planets are found (and, by extention, the rest of the points on the list are equally suspect) or he understands the process and is twisting the facts to suit his purpose.

Neither one makes for good science.



Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jane "maybe REACHING perfection isn't the goal. Maybe striving for perfection is what it's all about.
Life is what you make of it."

But we were talking about God not man.


Eric, welcome back. Let's see, quick wrap up of your absence.

A lot of time was spent trying to get an answer from Jane, Teryt, and Alan to this: What if ID were allowed in the biology classroom, and you had a chapter in the textbook and a week's worth of lessons to teach it, what would you teach?

Jane said just mention ID. Teryt said just mention ID. Alan said a little more, I think about irreducible complexity.

Then a lot of time was spent getting anyone to stop attacking evolutionary theory and science and tell us what exactly ID theory says and what contribution is has to offer.

Pages of material were cut and paste but only one sentence on irreducible complexity answered the question.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply